Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Deathblow ConflictI think we should pull on the earlier decision made about critical hits: that the rules should be simple and expanded tables should appear in the appendix as as optional rule, just like in Mordheim.

I do like the idea Blackheart Ranger put forth about defensive and offensive fighting. I also like Golembane's idea for different types of Deathblows. Given the need for Deathblows in early-level games, however, I think that perhaps critical hits should take an "optional" or "advanced" rules bump, giving presidence to a fixed version of the Deathblow. Since every basic warrior (well, in the old rule set) is armed with a sword, allowing a traditional Deathblow may be right for a basic sword.

This is clearly a major issue, and I think we should all discuss the pros and cons for a while.

Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Deathblow ConflictYou do have a point. It's esay to get carried away...
I like the idea of having deathblows as a type of crit. I also like the ideas of having them as a function of certain weapons (slashing, axes and swords).
Should it depend on the type of foe you're facing? Swarm or dragon?

golembane wrote:
Pretty much a melee weapon that uses two hands should be able to cause some form of death blow. This would assist in making a defensive player hard to kill but also slow killing where as an offensive player will take more damage but in general kill more.

It was actually Golembane that came up with the idea of Def / off fighting

Okay, how about this? A roll of a 6 indicates a powerful blow, unleashing the full potential of a weapon. Firstly it causes a critcal hit. Taking the monsters as an example, let's say this adds 1 damage die (like with Ogres, etc).

This savage attack also brings out the special effect of the weapon. A spear, for example, would attempt to damage every target within its range (at normal damage). As a spear extends 2 spaces, it can only do so if the warrior is not already attacking in ranks. A pike has a range of 4, and is much better for this practise. We assume that the attack continues to pierce simply because of its ferocity. The monsters being hit are simply taking less serious wounds.

Bludgeoning weapons like Warhammers and table legs would cause a stun effect. Axes would cause a deathblow effect on the three squares the warrior faces. Swords, being more precise and deadly, would simply critical on 5's but have no special powers.

Against Large Monsters, all weapons critical on 6's and have no special powers. Spears can only critical a Large monster if they are within half range.

Against Swarm Monsters (Snotlings, Animalia, actual swarms) cause good old fashioned Deathblows on a six.

How does that sound? I'm not so sure about the Swarm Monsters yet, but that might work... not sure. What does everyone think?

I haven't forgotten offensive and defensive. I'll get to that right afterward.

So defensive fighting would give bonuses like Parry, +Toughness or the like (depending on the weapon..?) but no crits.
Sword- Parry
Spear/polearm/staff- +1 Toughness
Axes, Hammers, other- -1 to be hit
???

So make the players capable switch off between defensive fighting and offensive?

Would be an interesting twist since there are stories where the user of a great sword uses it blade down to act like a shield.

I think though the polearm's of all nature should give the -1 to-hit rule since if you go defensive your thrusting it out and using the distance to your advantage.

I imagine +1 Toughness for defensive fighting with other weapons would work, but for some reason it doesn't... right. Maybe a chance to counter attack, but only once per combat phase?

Of couse this would also have to hve the player denote if they are going offensive or defensive at the begining of combat simply because we'd have players swapping styles every turn if its beneficial to them.

Making the players say at the begining of combat encounter(and lasting until all agro is taken care of) they are playing defensive fighting where as others say the are going full frontal assault will make the players think about the fight before them and think of the possible outcomes.

If a full party went all out offensive then they would kill fast but take more damage.

A party though that went defensive should kill slower but end up taking less damage.

So this would make the players learn to work more as a team(I am really pushing the team aspect aren't I).

Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Deathblow ConflictI agree with Golembane on both counts. The defensive value of polearms, INCLUDING THE WIZARD'S STAFF, should be -1 to hit and axes, etc, should be +1T. The players can only select their battle strategy when a new set of monsters is placed (this includes unexpected events). Strategy should occur at the start of the Warrior's phase AFTER enemy ambushes. If both sides get to ambush, the warriors may call their strategy.

The Wizard's Staff remains superior in that the user may switch strategy at the start of every turn, like before.

Re: WHQ 2nd Ed - Deathblow ConflictIt seems that everyone is forgetting that Fight Defensively is a skill that can be found in the Roleplay book, although I think that the description of sacrificing an attack for the enemies to be -1 to hit seems a bit too harsh... Maybe if the warrior is fighting defensively both he and the monsters have -1 to hit... Just a thought.